While North America grapples with the newest variation on age-old tensions between men and women, Trudeau was clear his calibration point for sexually-related impropriety is zero tolerance.

“We have no tolerance for this … we will not brush things under the rug … we will take action immediately (by) modelling (what) we hope to see across the Hill (and) throughout workforces and workplaces in Canada,” he told The Canadian Press.

Yet when the prime minister faced media questions about a cabinet minister who’d stepped down over allegations of sexual harassment, he complained of being in uncharted territory.

“I don’t have a rulebook that’s been handed down to me from Wilfrid Laurier as leader of the Liberal Party on how to handle these situations,” he said.

Justin Trudeau must set a new standard for sexual propriety in great part because his father dismantled traditional values

The case of the ex-minster (and the case of a member of the prime minister’s office facing similar accusations) are in due process and need no further comment here. Yet their very existence underscores the difficulty Justin Trudeau faces, in large measure because of what former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought about. The son must now man up to overcome his father.

Pierre Trudeau certainly didn’t create the sexual revolution in Canada. He was, though, its public, legal and political catalyst. The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, he famously declared. As federal justice minister, then as prime minister, his business was dismantling existing models of sexual propriety.

For many at the time, Pierre Trudeau’s undermining and demolition of sexual mores constituted the destruction of millennia of Judeo-Christian defences against libertinism. Others welcomed it as liberating elimination of impediments to human sexual flourishing. Temporarily, Trudeau the liberator won. History appeared to be on his side, not on the side of the traditional values.

Although Pierre Trudeau died in September 2000, the course he mapped for Canada long ago has defined what’s politically, socially and culturally possible to collectively think about sexual conduct. We followed his path from 1967 until Sept. 27, 2017.

That day the music died for the sexual revolution. Hugh Hefner expired. His death at 91 confirmed how old, how enfeebled, how irrational, how, frankly, creepy the embedded revolution really was.

Whether by the active hand of God or not, the Harvey Weinstein scandal erupted on the front page of the New York Times 11 days later. Ensuing images created a tableau vivant of how revolutions die: corpulent, corrupt, ripe with solipsistic cruelty, quasi-barbaric.

Now we meet the maelstrom of confusion and opportunity that embodies the delivery of one historical era into another. We saw it relatively recently when the 1917 Russian Revolution came to its irrevocable end in 1989.

A key difference is that its signature event was breaking down the Berlin Wall as a harbinger of freedoms long denied. We, by contrast, face relearning how to rebuild solid boundaries because what began as an exercise in liberty foundered in libertinism for far too long.

As someone old enough to see the circle come fully around, I’m just barely wise enough to refrain from giving advice on reconstruction. But therein lies the challenge for Justin Trudeau. Indeed, for all of us. Where do Canadians learn what they no longer know? Where do they go to re-know what they no longer know they do not know?

Trudeau deserves our respect for being willing to lead the quest. But there are some fair questions to ask him:

Where will he find the rulebook he craves? What limitations does he face as the son of the father who catalyzed the abolition of age-old understandings? And what are we to do with the legacy of the elder Trudeau, who left us having to stand and watch this very difficult and uncertain future unfold?

Share this:

Like this:

ArmchairMayor.ca is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views.
Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At ArmchairMayor.ca he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists.
This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

3 Comments on GENDER EQUITY – End of the sexual revolution, start of a new awakening?

Peter Stockland’s recollection and interpretation of Pierre Trudeau’s time are erroneous making it evident he did little or research into that period. Shirley’s comments reflect most of the reality of that period. One can easily research this online with PET’s statement: ‘There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’. You’ll find several choices starting with CBC’s video of the situation! Trudeau senior was reflecting the reality of the period! Yes, and the criminal code was changed for the first time in decades. You’ll see for yourself what it covered. Thank you Shirley for clarifying accurately the history of women’s and society’s attitudes.

The legacy of the elder…what was the populace up to during his tenure?
Were they just standing there with their pinky up their noses? Nowdays if you expose yourself without consent you may have to face some consequences, is that wrong?

Without looking it up, and just reacting to your article, I will put it out there from memory: was not P.E.Trudeau talking about society victimizing individuals on the basis of their sexual preference? No way was he saying anything about it being ‘nobody’s business’ when power and influence is used to sexually assault or harass with Inpunity.

I think, from the sounds of your age via your stated recollection period, that you and I have lived long enough to see (1) the sexual revolution wherein women demanded equality: equal pay, equal opportunity – and are well on the road to getting it; and now (2) a sexual revolution wherein women are refusing to be forced to accept sexual assaults of any sort delivered under the threat of shame from the community, ownership of the assault (“failing to keep your legs closed”) or career destruction – at the least interferance, and in going public the victim surely wearing the label for life, has put women well on the road to freedom of that tyranny. Any young man today will think twice about groping or assault in any light knowing that it is not “free” and if reported the victim will be believed and he will receive societal shunning – the potention perpetrator will think twice that is for sure.

Back to the Trudeau’s, I can see Pierre’s stand against victimization because of sexual preference, and Justin’s comment on not having a rulebook to follow while society searches for solid ground positioning in a a whole history of quagmire of rampant victim injustice. I’m just so glad that finally women are on the road to freedom in that regard as well.